(FB 1552174894 Timestamp)
i say that there is only one metaphysics but many fictions. And therefore the use of fictions is not in fact metaphysical.
And as such people who claim otherwise are engaged in fraud.
As far as i know the physical, cognitive, and linguistic sciences explain every concept metaphysicians claim in their purview.
As far as time an causality these are subjects sophomorically conflated but causality exists, but like all else reduced to speech can never be complete, only necessary sufficient and contingent.
The same for time : which time are we talking about? What makes the change in state possible, the rate of change vary, and our memory of passage vary, and our perception of the rate of change vary? all of these answers we know. zeno was a bit of a sophist.
My current understanding is that there exists nothing that cannot be explained scientifically. and thats certainly going to hold.
A scientific explanation is not the same as the experience we describe with that science – this is true. If we want a separate aesthetic language for the experience that is commensurable with the scientific then that is fine. if we want to discuss the different fictions that different groups operate under thats still one metaphysics and many fiction that allow people to conceive of that beyond their direct perception then that is a vehicle for hypothesizing by analogy.
I am pretty certain i can produce a proof of construction that is so parsimonious it will survive all criticism. there is nothing left that i know of other than the relationship between personality traits and reward systems and i think others know this. But one cannot work on artificial intelligence
My reductionist approach requires operational language under the argument that if you cannot do so you cannot claim that you know of what you speak, and that therefore cannot make a truth claim, because you cannot claim to testify what you cannot operationally describe. and even then you may not and likely may not infer anything from you explanation.
There is only one most parsimonious paradigm. that paradigm cannot be expressed as other than analogy to operational experience without the introduction of fiction. the narrative requires categories to limit sequential prose to that which is possible for human minds. all such paradigms worldwide are converging on the scientific (scientific naturalism small number of consisten universal rules).
I mean. until you find a set of case that are not open to natural explanation anything anyone says about metaphysics is just nonsense.
AFAIK philosophy is currently relegated to choice of preference or good an the rest is science. And i cant find an exception to that rule.